Psychoanalysis

Very recently I came across an article debating the relevance of application of psychoanalytic theory on literary characters. The author argued that such a practice is redundant since these are, as their name suggests, merely literary characters. They are not flesh and bones human beings who have an intellect, and capacity for human emotions. They have not actually experienced any of the incidents mentioned in the story they appear in. And even though they are great models to practice on for those who are new to psychoanalysis, for understanding texts it is entirely avoidable. In other words literary characters are figments of imagination who simply do not have any psycho-emotive intellect to analyse in the first place.

This set me thinking. How productive is application of theories to literary characters? Are these characters and their reactions even applicable to the real world? Well as convincing as the author’s arguments were I take a different view.

Of course we understand that the characters described are not real. But does that mean they are not grounded in reality? What writers write have a strong affinity to mirror the events they have experienced (both primary and secondary experience). What we see, hear or read about inspires us to imagine and that in 99% of the cases is true.  If texts reflect social experience then the characters in them embody the human experience in that society. Here the fact  Thus Psychoanalysis of literary texts does nothing more than expose the psycho-emotional experience of the general human race and explores the number of reactions possible.

Psychoanalysis of literary characters, therefore, only help us analyse the various avenues of human mind and therefore it is an extremely important branch of literary, social and humanistic studies.\\

 

(am thinking about it still,)

 

- M